I posted this up in News/Activism because it is a call to activism, and therefore seemed to me to fit the bill.

This is a "caucus" thread - if you're a pro-Romney whiner, then go find another thread. This one is for conservatives who want to do something about the election besides hang our heads and timidly thump a tub for Mittens.

I've intended this thread to hang around for a while so that we can throw ideas back and forth and start trying to network, etc. If you're really interested in organizing for action, please feel free to join in. If you want to hang back and not get actively involved, well, feel free to join in or lurk too.

Republicans spit on conservatives every chance they get. Now they are trying to cram a liberal pro-gay pro-choice establishment RINO down our throats.

I’m glad the Revolution occurred long ago. Some here would have called the Patriots loons for what they did and they would have backed the King against the Patriots. I would have fought then and I will fight for my beliefs now. I’m done with republicans telling me who to vote for. I’m sick of crony politics.

I will NOT vote for pro-gay pro-choice romney. If obama wins again, blame the spineless people who turned their backs on conservatism and their values to vote for AN establishment liberal RINO.

51
posted on 04/28/2012 6:43:01 PM PDT
by mardi59
(THE REBELLION IS ON!!!)

We should certainly work to defeat romney and hope for a brokered convention. Although frankly that no longer seems likely.

In what way do you think we should work to defeat Romney and hope for a brokered convention? What are your thoughts on how to defeat a candidate that no longer has any real competition and will very shortly have all the delegates necessary to be the official nominee? You can just avoid the whole mental exercise if you accept that "no longer seems likely" doesn't apply anymore, "no longer possible" does.

1. No way conservatives can possibly win without a solid union of social conservatives and libertarians.

2. Also, no way that a free Republic is even possible unless a majority are willing to discipline themselves in the right waywhich means to obey the basic moral laws, have stable families, do away with stuff like abortion, and return to the values that made our country great in the first place.

So let me understand this. One the one hand you are saying there is no way conservatives can win without libertarians, and in the very next sentence you are telling libertarians to....do what exactly? Drop all their social libertarian positions? That is hardly going to convince very many libertarian folks to join in your quest for unity.

I think we are just not going to win the votes of most real libertarians and it is just foolish to even try. It's a giant waste of time actually. You are offering to give up essentially nothing, yet you are asking them to give up half their agenda to join your cause - that's just not realistic and isn't going to happen. Right now, the people we want to attract into the conservative camp are right-of-center folks with some libertine leanings (which has become more and more the norm). This accounts for a lot of everyday Americans who are with us on the economic and foreign policy stuff, but lukewarm on abortion, gay rights, etc. We may get many of these folks (and keep our anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc, positions) if we focus on the massive debt, wasteful spending, Hussein's world wide apology tour, etc. However, turn the election into a social issue fest and start babbling about whether contraception is "not okay" or blather on about a need to crack down on porn - things that Santorum risked doing, and we lose almost all of these voters. .

Now if we reach a point where social conservatives were actually willing to give up something to attract libertarians, there might be room to deal. Keep anti-abortion, keep anti-gay marriage in exchange for dropping objections to legalized drugs, gambling and prostitution. This kinda of workable alliance might bare fruit one day, but I think it is still a long way off.

I disagree. We have a huge segment of the population who are swing voters. They don't care about politics, don't post on political forums and don't really invest any time learning about the issues at hand. They vote only because it has been drummed into their heads that they have a civic obligation to do so. And when they vote, they vote superficially for the guy they'd most like to have a beer with or have as their neighbor.

Their votes count the same as yours or mine and this is the group of voters who decide elections.

Assuming Romney is the Republican nominee, what we should be doing is work to elect tea party candidates to both the House and Senate. If we are to be stuck with Romney as president(I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM) we need to make the GOP-E’s life a living hell if they don’t “toe the line”. We need to control the debate in the congresses.

It strikes me that the real hurdle to a serious effort to elect a conservative instead of Mock Rombama will be the inertia of conservatives themselves, as we have seen on this and a ton of other threads.

“There’s no way a third party can win!”

Well, yes there is - if conservatives voted for it.

Remember, conservatives make up the plurality in this country. Conservatives are also not synonymous with “Republicans.” There are conservative independents, and even conservative Democrats. In a situation where you had three serious candidates, you don’t need 50%. You need closer to 40% to have a solid win.

If conservatives actually voted their consciences instead of resigning themselves to Romney, they’d win. The only thing stopping them is this institutionalised mindset. The GOP has them locked into a psychological profile not unlike people who have been in prison for decades. The thought of life outside those four walls scares them. They’d rather stay inside, even if means having no freedom and remaining in the terrible situation they are in. Likewise, a lot of conservatives simply cannot imagine life outside the GOP. it scares them. They won’t step outside of it, even when they’re stuck with a nominee who’s as bad as the Dem.

Let’s face it - fear is what drives a lot of so-called conservatives. Not just fear of Obama, but fear of stepping out and taking a chance. They’d rather play it safe and lose with Romney (does any sane person *really* think Romney has a shot of winning in the end?) than take a chance on switching their vote to a solid conservative third party candidate. They would only do so if they saw a lot of other people doing it, because let’s face it, a lot of conservatives - despite the way they like to pat themselves on the back - are followers, not leaders. They would deny it, but the reality is that they let the MSM and the GOP-E do their thinking for them.

Breaking this in-the-box mindset is the first step to breaking the power of the GOP and electing a real conservative candidate - even if it has to be done outside the GOP.

We haven't even gotten to the general election yet, so you most certainly have not done ALL you could do to get rid of Obama yet.

I supported and voted for NEWT and my supported remains there!

Maybe you've endured a news blackout for the past week or so, but you should probably realize that Newt dropped out right? He's done. He will be endorsing Romney next week. Why are you supporting someone who is not even a candidate anymore, AND is supporting Mitt Romney (someone you claim you can't vote for). Further, if you thought Newt was so great that you were willing to support and vote for him, why can't you take his word for it that voting ABO (aka Romney) is the best course of action going forward?

Please don't respond if your not willing to be coherent. I really don't want to try to decipher one of your posts that rambles on about evil, satan, hell, etc, etc.

Those people do not constitute a "middle". If you do some serious interrogation you will find their final voting decision has been counseled according to one or more interest groups of which they are a member.

Here's a good example of such behavior ~ there are actually some school teachers who are honest and upstanding citizens. If "Education" is not a current issue in their area they'll vote for candidates on other issues. If education is THE topic of the day, you'll find them voting for their own self-interest.

That behavior might make it look like they are flip-flopping but they're not.

This is why it is necessary to identify the factions and go after those where you have a "wedge issue".

Obama has some advisors who know these things so they are working on a "wedge issue" suitable for Hispanics who may well be persuaded by Republican interests in private sector job growth. NOTE THAT ~ it's the JOBS Issue there just like with the 53% of unemployed recent college graduates. If you've been generally unemployed for 5 years after graduating, that's a really huge wedge.

The Democrats full well expect Republicans to exploit their advantage here!

I definitely agree that we conservatives need to make a priority out of electing solid conservatives to the House and Senate. A good start on that appears to be in the making in Indiana.

I believe that we can present a third option besides Romney and Obama. I’m not even asking for some sort of super-hard right Constitution Party type (though that appears to be about the best we have for now); I’d simply settle for a reasonable movement conservative who took mainstream conservative positions across the range of issues. Romney is nowhere near that.

The hurdle to a conservative candidate is conservatives themselves. As long as they won’t even entertain the possibility that a third party candidate could garner enough support to have a shot, then they self-fulfill that prophecy. But what if the bulk of conservatives decided to vote their consciences rather than what they’ve been brainwashed into believing by the establishment?

The Obama candidacy was really launched at his speach in the 2004 convention. What conservatives do we need to try to set up in a similar manner this year? Are there any governors ready to make the leap?

3rd party’s just don’t work in our system. They mostly never have and they never will. We have a winner take all system that does not allow for coalition government, and that is generally going to result in 2 party’s - as it has in the US since the very beginning. If the GOP grew so weak that it is imploding, you might be able to replace it. But make no mistake, that new party would become the second leg of the 2 party system (with mostly the same people in it). It wouldn’t take long for all the same factions and divisions within this new party to plague it just like it does the Republican party.

Very occasionally you may get a Ross Perot type, but that flamed out and achieved nothing more than to help elect Bill Clinton. You have a few Nader and Anderson types, but all they amount to is potential spoilers. They aren’t going to win, and they know it - these are vanity campaigns.

It is far better off continuing the work of pushing the Republican party to the right from within. It can, and IS being done on the local and state level. People need to quit whining because it hasn’t been a complete success nationally to this point. Romney won the nomination because movement conservatives and Tea Party types were very divided - and MANY sat on the sidelines waiting for Palin who declined to run. By that time primaries were a mess and Mitt breezed through. It isn’t always going to be that way. One thing conservatives do have to do is aggressively court GOOD potential candidates. It is pointless to put up dingbats like Christine O’Donnell characters who not only lose horrible, do damage to the party downticket, but it discourages people from associating with the Tea Party once they see the disasterous results. No more O’Donnells, no more Sharon Angles, no more Carl Paladino’s. These are silly candidates that badly hurt the cause.

There are an estimated 115 million TEA Party aligned citizens in the United States today.

Just by garnering 70% of that caucus would yield 80 million votes. That’s 11 million more than Obama received in 2008 and 21 million more than McCain received in 2008.

The TEA party network is already established and battle tested. We’re ready to roll.

To place a TEA Party Independent ticket of Sarah Palin for President and Rand Paul for Vice-President on the ballot in all 50 states in time for the November elections would require about 750,000 signatures from registered voters and about $8100 for ballot fees. Do you think the various TEA Party groups across America could execute on this action in time for the November general election?

You Betcha!

In the meantime, the strategy for Conservatives, TEA Partiers, and Libertarians should be to vote for Ron Paul in the remaining primaries. If one is truly brave, they could even sign up with their local Campaign for Liberty group.

Americans Elect has already secured ballot access for the November election in 25 states. The TEA Party should have no problem doing likewise.

The TEA Party should retain Richard Winger of Ballot Access News as a consultant. He is this country’s foremost expert on ballot access questions and issues. His contact info:

Romney is very weak in the South and cannot beat Obama in the critical states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Obama won all of those states in 2008 and if he wins those states again, he is re-elected.

Check out Karl Rove’s electoral map and Larry Sabato’s electoral map. Romney loses even if he wins all of the toss-up states.

A TEA Party Independent ticket could toss the entire election into the House of Representatives just by winning one of the rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, or Wisconsin. Of course, Romney would have to hold the South but if he were to fail in that task, a TEA Party Independent ticket could pick up the slack and keep those states out of Obama’s column.

Obama is the weakest President running for re-election since Jimmy Carter and, instead of running a Ronald Reagan [Sarah Palin] against him, who does the ‘Stupid Party’ choose?

“Real conservatives” have had three long years and a months long primary season to come up with a viable candidate to lead the GOP in November 2012. They failed. No one who put his arse on the line was every quite good or conservative enough. Why would anyone think that some magical knight in shining armor is going to blaze onto the scene now? And who, pray tell, might that ideal candidate be?

My ancestors also fought in that war and some died, will you call them murderers because we won the cause?

I’m sorry your ancestors suffered during the revolution, but war is war and hell on all involved. I can say I am happy the Patriots won the day and that we have this beautiful nation we call home. It is a shame that there are some that wish to see it destroyed.

I will carry on as my ancestors did and do all I can to remain a faithful Patriot.

87
posted on 04/28/2012 7:41:04 PM PDT
by mardi59
(THE REBELLION IS ON!!!)

Mod - Could we get a refresher on the rules for caucus threads? I can't find them, although I remember from my trespassing in a Catholic caucus thread that they went something like “if you're not a member of the caucus, stay away unless you can be respectful and leave your disagreements with the caucus at the door.

Innovative - Not trying to be rude, but I think some folks would like to have a discussion without a bunch of interruptions.

In a sense, you're right - and maybe this will teach is a lesson. Shoot, I'd settle for the 80% friend right now, instead of the 5% "friend" that the GOP nominated.

Conservatives DID mess up in demanding absolute purity from the candidates - especially when nobody could agree on what absolute purity was anywise, therefore FR (and other places, I'd imagine) simply factionalised into a set of "my candidate or the highway" bickering. Now were stuck with a GOP candidate who really SHOULD get the highway treatment, but now we won't, because everybody's so durn afraid on Obama that they can't think straight to see their way out of the box they're in.

Not trying to be rude, but I think some folks would like to have a discussion without a bunch of interruptions.

This was posted in the GOP forum. Romney will be the GOP nominee for President.

By "caucus thread" are you folks looking for a thread completely detached from reality? Some sort of happy fantasyland where Virgil Goode is going to select Sarah Palin as his running mate and crush Obama in a 520 electoral vote landslide?

Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. It sucks. Grow up and deal with it.

Thats why we need to make the GOP cease to be a major party, and replace it with something else.

Your not going to be able to organize people to try to destroy the GOP. There are just way MORE movement conservatives and Tea Party folks working within the GOP (particular at the local and state level) to make it more conservative. Your idea isn't realistic and is actually working at cross purposes with many of your own allies.

A US political party implodes when it becomes immovable over some big issue(s) that massive numbers of voters give up on the party over. That is very, very unlikely to happen now or anytime in the foreseeable future. The Republican party platform will be fairly conservative (even though most of us on this forum don't believe or nominee really is at heart).

The 3rd party thing is a waste of time. You'd be far better off spending time explaining to people how to get involved in the Republican party at the local level in their town, city, state. If more conservative activists DID that rather than just TALK about dreams of a 3rd party, we'd be moving even faster towards pushing the GOP to the right. You'd be simply amazed how few people actually take the time to simply register and participate in local party meetings. All it takes is someone to grab some friends, show up, and just that alone can have a LOT of influence. Those are the basic things that need doing. It's fun to chit chat about the grand national level stuff, but that's not where the vast majority of people are ever really going to have an opportunity to make an impact.

Alf Landon was nominated by the Republican Party in 1936 and he couldn’t crack double digits in the electoral college.

In a three-way race with Obama and Sarah Palin, Romney finishes third.

Just like William Howard Taft couldn’t crack double digits in the electoral college for his Presidential re-election in 1912, Romney will suffer the same fate. Theodore Roosevelt, as a third-party candidate in 1912, won 88 electoral votes by winning the states of Washington, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.